Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Cheatham v. Va. Coll., LLC

    Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-04481-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2020)

    Accordingly, to the extent Defendants' motion seeks dismissal of this action and dismissal of Cheatham's class allegations, the motion is DENIED and this action is STAYED pending arbitration. ECF 3, at 13-14 (citing Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2001); Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-180, 2007 WL 1229339 (M.D. Ala. April 25, 2007); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006)). Dale, however, was reversed on appeal.

  2. Adamson v. CWI, Inc.

    Case Number: 2:20-cv-00404-JHE (N.D. Ala. Jun. 19, 2020)

    Although 9 U.S.C. § 3 speaks in terms of requiring a stay when an action is referred to arbitration, the weight of authority from district courts within this Circuit (and other circuit courts of appeals) supports a dismissal of an action when, due to an order compelling arbitration, there are no substantive claims left pending before the district court. Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07cv180-ID(WO), 2007 WL 1229339 at *3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); see also Clayton v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citing Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001) ); Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., No. 6:06cv1727-ORL-31KRS, 2007 WL 177821, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007). Furthermore, although the Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed the propriety of dismissal in lieu of a stay under 9 U.S.C. § 3, it has "frequently affirmed where the district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the underlying case."

  3. Riley v. Tower Loan of Miss., LLC

    CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-655-ECM (WO) (M.D. Ala. Dec. 16, 2019)

    Although 9 U.S.C.§ 3 suggests the Court "stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement," the circumstances of this case support dismissal without prejudice. Although 9 U.S.C. § 3 speaks in terms of requiring a stay when an action is referred to arbitration, the weight of authority from district courts within this Circuit (and other circuit courts of appeals) supports a dismissal of an action when, due to an order compelling arbitration, there are no substantive claims left pending before the district court. Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07cv180-ID(WO), 2007 WL 1229339 at *3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); see also Clayton v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006)(citing Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSRTropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001)); Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., No. 6:06cv1727-ORL-31KRS, 2007 WL 177821, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007).

  4. Smith v. RJC, LLC

    Case No.: 2:18-cv-00830-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    B. This Action is Due to Be DismissedAlthough 9 U.S.C. § 3 speaks in terms of requiring a stay when an action is referred to arbitration, the weight of authority from district courts within this Circuit (and other circuit courts of appeals) supports a dismissal of an action when, due to an order compelling arbitration, there are no substantive claims left pending before the district court. Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07cv180-ID(WO), 2007 WL 1229339 at *3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); see also Clayton v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citing Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001)); Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., No. 6:06cv1727-ORL-31KRS, 2007 WL 177821, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007). Furthermore, although the Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed the propriety of dismissal in lieu of a stay under 9 U.S.C. § 3, it has "frequently affirmed where the district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the underlying case."

  5. Evans v. Momentum Telecom, Inc.

    Case No.: 2:16-cv-01764-JHE (N.D. Ala. Jan. 20, 2017)

    Plaintiff Kokesia Evans and Defendant Momentum Telecom, Inc. jointly move for an order dismissing this action without prejudice to allow Evans to proceed in Arbitration with her claims against Momentum. (Doc. 17). Having considered the motion and finding the arbitration agreement enforceable,see 9 U.S.C. § 2, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Although 9 U.S.C. § 3 speaks in terms of requiring a stay when an action is referred to arbitration, the weight of authority from district courts within this Circuit (and other circuit courts of appeals) supports a dismissal of an action when, due to an order compelling arbitration, there are no substantive claims left pending before the district court. Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., No. 2:07cv180-ID(WO), 2007 WL 1229339 at *3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); see also Clayton v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (citing Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. BSR Tropicana Resort, Inc., 252 F.3d 707, 709-10 (4th Cir. 2001)); Gilchrist v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., No. 6:06cv1727-ORL-31KRS, 2007 WL 177821, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2007). Furthermore, although the Eleventh Circuit has not directly addressed the propriety of dismissal in lieu of a stay under 9 U.S.C. §3, it has "frequently affirmed where the district court compelled arbitration and dismissed the underlying case."

  6. Braggs v. Grayhawk Homes, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV468-SRW (M.D. Ala. Oct. 21, 2015)

    Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5 th Cir. 1992)(concluding that 9 U.S.C. § 3 "was not intended to limit dismissal of a case in the proper circumstances" and stating,"Given our ruling that all issues raised in this action are arbitrable and must be submitted to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction and staying the action will serve no purpose. Any post-arbitration remedies sought by the parties will not entail renewed consideration and adjudication of the merits of the controversy but would be circumscribed to a judicial review of the arbitrator's award in the limited manner prescribed by law.")(citations omitted); Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, 2007 WL 1229339, 3-5 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); Clayton v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society, 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997). Because plaintiffs have brought no claims against Grayhawk that are not subject to binding arbitration, there is nothing for this court to decide on the merits of plaintiffs' claims after arbitration. Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims against Grayhawk are due to be dismissed, rather than stayed.

  7. Wickersham v. Lynch Motor Co. of Auburn

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV280-SRW (M.D. Ala. Mar. 6, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992)(concluding that 9 U.S.C. § 3 "was not intended to limit dismissal of a case in the proper circumstances" and stating,"Given our ruling that all issues raised in this action are arbitrable and must be submitted to arbitration, retaining jurisdiction and staying the action will serve no purpose. Any post-arbitration remedies sought by the parties will not entail renewed consideration and adjudication of the merits of the controversy but would be circumscribed to a judicial review of the arbitrator's award in the limited manner prescribed by law.")(citations omitted); Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, 2007 WL 1229339, 3-5 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 25, 2007); Clayton v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society, 981 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 (M.D. Ala. 1997). Because plaintiff has brought no claims before this court that are not subject to binding arbitration, there is nothing for this court to decide on the merits of plaintiff's claims after arbitration. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims are due to be dismissed, rather than stayed.

  8. Hayden v. Coppage

    533 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (M.D. Ala. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Granting motion to dismiss plaintiff's equal protection claim where his amended complaint failed to show a similarly situated comparator

    The state-law claims are due to be remanded back to the state court from which this case was removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Halford v. Deer Valley Home Builders, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 2:07cv180-ID, 2007 WL 1229339, *5 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (discussing the district court's authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to remand supplemental state-law claims to state court when the federal claim which supported removal is dismissed). III.